Other Voices

Lower drinking age bad idea

Lower drinking age bad idea

August 21, 2009

The decades old debate of the state's drinking age has resurfaced. Rep. Tim Rounds, R-Pierre, said lowering the drinking age from 21 would make the roads safer and encourage young people to drink more responsibly. We don't agree. Lowering the drinking age isn't going to dry up back road underage parties; it's not going to make 18- or 19-year-olds responsible drinkers; it's not going to make the roads safer or put an end to house parties. The idea of lowering the drinking age was developed by a summer legislative committee and will be revisited next month. It might even make its way to the 2010 Legislature if the committee can find a way to introduce it without risking federal highway funds. State Transportation Secretary Darin Bergquist said $17.5 million in federal highway funds would have been forfeited this year if the state had chosen to ignore the federal drinking age mandate. No one is willing to risk that. Even Rounds (the representative, not the governor) said the committee wouldn't pursue the idea should the funds be at risk. South Dakota didn't change its drinking age to comply with federal requirements until 1987. That change came only after the state challenged the federal mandate in court and lost. But history may prove to be the undoing of any move to lower the drinking age. During the past two decades, the state has seen a decline in youth and alcohol-related traffic fatalities. On occasion we'll have to be content with allowing the government to protect us from ourselves - drinking age laws might be a case in point. While lowering the drinking age might satisfy the state's grudge over heavy-handed federal tactics and even have the basis for a sound argument, in the end, the only thing lowering the drinking age will accomplish is to get more young people drinking. - Rapid City Journal S.D. transportation needs require federal assistance South Dakota and other rural states could get lost in the shuffle as Congress continues its work on a new transportation bill. A preliminary draft recommends spending a significant portion of $110 billion in additional highway funding in large metropolitan areas or on large projects. Neither of those recommendations help South Dakota because we don't have any large metropolitan areas. We also don't have any large projects that would impact millions of people. South Dakota, however, does have important transportation needs that require federal financial assistance. Being a small state with limited financial resources, federal funds are essential to maintaining our highways and bridges. Some of the proposals being offered in Congress make sense. Among them are efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and to expand walking and biking programs. Those are important goals in urban areas. Rural states don't have those problems. While many communities in South Dakota have walking and biking trails, they're more for exercise and health-related concerns. There's no doubt bigger states have bigger problems than smaller, less-populated states like South Dakota. But the needs in states like ours are as important to us as the needs of major metropolitan areas are to them. Sen. John Thune is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee Surface Transportation Subcommittee and has been holding field hearings to solicit input on rural transportation needs and how they would be affected by the proposed transportation bill currently in Congress. Hopefully, what he hears will have an impact in Washington. We do expect our fair share of federal dollars because the needs here are just important to us as the needs in metropolitan areas are to residents there. - Watertown Public Opinion